Slashdot Mirror
The F-35 Story
New submitter phyzz writes "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program aimed to replace several aircraft from three major military services with a fifth-generation model capable of short-takeoff and vertical-landing while maintaining the capability of sustained supersonic flight — all while staying affordable. The project has finally gotten some test points validated, but after a decade in development and numerous cost and schedule overruns, it faces an uphill fight against budget reductions. Bloomberg has an interesting story about the program's troubled past. Quoting: 'Ten years and $66 billion later, the aircraft is still in development, five years behind schedule and 64 percent over cost estimates. The Obama administration may cancel some models and also cut the Pentagon’s orders. The plane, envisioned as the affordable stealth fighter for the U.S. and allies, has turned into a budget target. "I’d blame the program’s setbacks on the fact that we lived in a rich man’s world," said Jacques Gansler, a former Pentagon chief weapons buyer in the Clinton administration and now a professor at the University of Maryland at College Park. "There has been less emphasis on cost over the past 10 years," he said.'"
I think the larger story isn't a troubled individual program, it's a federal government that outsources and contracts almost *everything* these days. Having grown up around military bases, I find the level of contracting with anything military to be very troubling these days. I remember back in the 80's when bases began contracting out things like food services. Okay, that seemed pretty reasonable. But I recently went back to an old base that I had once been stationed at back in the day and being shocked by how far this has really gone. Not only were food services, the PX, laundries, etc. run by civilians--but so was base *security*. Instead of MP's greeting me at the gate, it was a bunch of rent-a-cops. I'm not even sure the base *has* MP's anymore (never saw any of them). It would seem a handful of contractors and merc firms do pretty much everything now for the government.
Thanks to the lobbying money of the Lockheed Martins, Northrop Grummans, and Blackwaters (or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves these days), we have overpriced weapons/aircraft programs that function as little more than cash funnels, U.S. embassies guarded not by Marines but by mercs, and a NASA that can't even build a rocket anymore without a Lockheed or Boeing to do all the work for them.
So why should Lockheed Martin care if the F-35 goes over budget, or the MEADS system turns out to be a money sink, etc. etc. ? It's not like a Congress that they *own* is ever going to call them to task for it. And they'll get a hundred *new* contracts to replace them. So why should it surprise anyone to see stories like this pop up again and again on /.?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"I’d blame the program’s setbacks on the fact that we lived in a rich man’s world,"
So, the development is five years behind schedule because the budget used to be too large?
So when Congress Republicans are going to launch investigations about this failure like they did with Solyndra?
The worst part about the Raptor cuts is that they cut it after the most expensive part of the program.
The cost per plane would have dropped significantly since the lines were already up and running. Meh.
F-35 was kept at F-22's expense because unlike F-22 (which is too awesome to share with anybody else for any reason) the F-35 is as much a diplomatic tool as it is military vehicle. The US obligated itself to its allies to produce this aircraft for mutual use, and not delivering it would cause a lot more international face loss than cancelling F-22.
It's really pathetic that we are more concerned with playing political games with our allies than fielding the best equipment for our armed forces.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
The F-22 had a few issues, namely that Congress wouldn't permit it to be exported and it wasn't really suitable for carrier-based ops (no STOL/VTOL capability.) The F-35 was supposed to be the successor to the F-16 as the near-standard fighter for NATO and non-NATO US allies, and provide a replacement for the F/A-18 for the Navy.
Uhm, who's that now? China is the only serious competitor out there that's in the jet building game nowadays, and while they may be eyeing their neighbors hungrily (and hell, they've been on a steady 1 conquest per decade rule for awhile now), they're pretty economically tied into the current relationship between the U.S., Eurozone and China. Their oil supplies are extra-national (ours are native) they're a net food importer (we're an exporter) and their entire economy is based on export fever. They may be aggressive, but "enemies" is a bit much.
-GiH
Actually... Yes! Without enough limitations projects are very susceptible to feature creep, and since they can keep getting money year after year without producing anything, there is not that much incentive to actually finish.
No, were 5 years behind schedule because the governments response to that situation in the past has been "Oh. Well here's some more money. Let see if that helps."
The JSF's biggest problem: it's a replacement for things the military already owns. No matter how much more cost-effective it might be, the planes it's intended to replace have already been paid for. The spare parts are already bought and paid for and in the warehouse. The pilots and ground crews are already trained. And everybody else uses those same planes too so wherever we go we can be assured of finding support facilities that'll accommodate the existing planes. No matter how affordable the JSF is, it's still going to cost more to bring into service than it'll cost to keep the existing planes flying.
And it isn't bringing anything to the table that the existing planes don't do. Sure it'll do in one package what you'd need several other models of aircraft to do, but it's not so incredibly more effective that you'd need fewer total planes and you still have to buy all new planes and spares and train crews on it. If you're tight on cash, you stick with what you've already got.
It's the VTOL/STOL version for the marines that bogged the whole program down. It was just too ambious and when this became obvious the "solution" was to put almost all the focus on the Marine version to push it through. They should have paused the Marine version instead, met all the objectives for the convential and carrier versions, then come back to the marines. In 5 or 10 years we'll be smarter about how to do it, where the airframe can be lightened, how to put more thrust in the engines, etc.
“A lot of design compromises were made especially to give the Marine Corps the STOVL capability which, by the way, they’ve never used in combat,” he said. “And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?” said McPeak, now chairman of Ethicspoint Inc., a consulting firm in Lake Oswego, Oregon.
I think the recent trend also has a lot to do with the demand for troops for combat related assignments. The outsourcing of some support tasks makes uniformed personnel available for combat assignments. It might be similar to the various womens auxiliaries from WW2 where men were made available for combat. When overseas combat deployments decline we may see a reversal of the trend, perhaps MPs back at the gates, etc.
Both sides hated it. Both Air Force and Navy worked hard to sabotage the project from get go. Navy insisted on side-by-side two seater fighter configuration, citing "visibility concerns on deck landings". Army insisted on ejection pod instead of ejection seats. And super sonic speed too. And maneuverability for deck landings too. By the time they got the specs done they got a "fighter" with thrust-to-weight ratio of some 0.5 or something, with barely better rate of climb and turn radius compared to even second world was fighters. The F111 Thunder Chief was a disaster even before it reached the drawing boards, it was a shame a plane with that kind of specs was given the F designation. F there definitely did not stand for Fighter. After sinking this, Navy got its way and got F-14 Tomcat and Air Force got its way and got F18 Eagle.
That should have been an object lesson to any bean counter trying shoehorn specs from multiple services into a single air-frame. But they never learn, do they?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's funny you should say that, because in The Netherlands, the opinion is that we only chose to join/support the development of the F35 to suck up to the US.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Russia is building the PAK FA 5th-gen fighter.
Another point, if you look at the demilitarized nations (Germany, Japan), they did pretty damn good after their militaries were drastically reduced.
Yeah, but they were only able to do that because the U.S. and Europe stepped in and took over their defence with NATO and occupation. Who is going to do that for the U.S. if we go bust?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Russia and EU are in the game as well. Even if they aren't "enemies" by the standard of the earlier poster, they could sell to someone who gets into a conflict with the US. The Russians have already done this.
Building vertical takeoff into the thing was the big mistake. Historically, VTOL aircraft have not been very successful, despite many attempts. However, the USMC has the Harrier, almost the only VTOL aircraft that works. So VTOL capability was specified for the F-35. This complicated the design enormously. (Look at the video, with all those hatches opening and huge nozzles deploying). I admire Lockheed-Martin for making that work at all. That's where the money went.
The best fighters have been clean, simple beasts, like the F-16. Trying to combine fighter, bomber, stealth, and VTOL guarantees an expensive aircraft. Usually something important is lost, like range, bomb load, or turn radius. Or, most importantly, number of aircraft. In an air war, the side that runs out of fighters first loses.
Has there ever been a plane on time on budget? I haven't ever heard of one.
I'm pretty sure some aircraft were developed during WWII in less time than developing the paperwork on a modern fighter. Of course that was in wartime when the difference between having it flying and not having it flying could be catastrophic.
And, to be fair, a WWII fighter was a heck of a lot simpler.
And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
The F-35 shouldn't be the JSF "Joint Strike Fighter", but the DNF: "Duke Nukem Fighter"
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Remember the recent Tanker fiasco... Boeing and Airbus fighting over pork with gravy while the KC-135 fleet gets older and older. And the new tanker is still YEARS away.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
OK, two words (since the program doesn't seem to be written about much): F-111.
That was the same kind of concept -- one plane that could play multiple roles -- but it didn't work out in the end since so many requirements went against each other. You'd think they'd learn from history, but I guess the concept is just too appealing.
The Harrier exists for VTOL. The F-16 is a very capable machine.
What can be more affordable than using what you already have?
Lockheed Martin doesn't like to have cost and schedule overruns. While I didn't work on this project directly (I knew people who did), my educated guess would be to the causes:
1) the government's requirements are either unrealistic or changing
2) doing large technical projects is legitimately hard to do on time, on budget, and meeting requirements.
This isn't just true of government and defense projects. This is true of almost all technical projects. While in grad school, I took a software project management class. The teacher stressed that out of all technical projects only 1/6th can be considered successful (on-time, on-budget, meets requirements).
So let's not be hypocritical and attributing cost overruns simply to lobbying.
As to the costs, the government is very bureaucratic. (stating the obvious) Also, the defense industry doesn't outsource labor. Imagine a place where engineering can work for good pay at the age of 55.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A lot of design compromises were made especially to give the Marine Corps the STOVL capability which, by the way, they’ve never used in combat
You were misinformed. VTOL Harriers have been used in combat.
Amphibious assault ships are a highly specialized self-contained "package" that contains everything that Marines need to deliver and support a ground force. Part of that force includes "fast movers" to provide close air support on a very rapid basis. Note that the US Marines and the British Royal Navy employ the same aircraft and the British have similarly sized carriers specialized for these type of aircraft. The concept was proven in the Falklands, Yugoslavia, the Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan and in the recent support of revolutionaries in Libya. One of many examples:
"On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya. They carried out air strikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011. Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by MV-22 Osprey." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II#United_States_Marine_Corps
It would have been so much better if they had trained just 3 more soldiers.
Russia is building the PAK FA 5th-gen fighter.
For India and anyone who will buy the thing. It's really an export item. Russia doesn't have enough money to develop a credible air threat these days.
And the Chinese 'stealth' fighter really isn't all that leading edge. So everyone else is still playing catchup to the US. of course we need to continue pushing the envelope but we could easily modernize the F-16 and 18 and keep up with the Jonsai for another generation.
Hell, the backbone of the bomber fleet is as old as I am. That's damned scary. I can hardly get out of bed some days much less plaster some country two continents away with tons of high explosive.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If not, why highlight the expected?
The real question is: why highlight the expected only after the fact?
Since when programs like this hit massive over-runs we are always reminded that programs like this always hit massive over-runs, why aren't those entirely predictable over-runs built in to the original budget? It is well-known how to do this, and since these over-runs--we are repeatedly told--are 100% sure predictable things on every single project of this type--it is just utter incompetence on the part of everyone involved that they are not built in from the start.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
This has little to do with the aircraft and everything to do with how much can be made off it. Its like everything the govt touches, they will charge what the govt will pay until the payments stop and we are lucky if there is any functionality at all without massive over-runs and over-budgets. It would be more useful to hold a company to its bid and either get delivery of the product (at specs) or reimbursement of the payments. But as we all know.. thats not how the military complex works.
Um, wasn't the whole point of cancelling F-22 orders in favor of the F-35? I.e., going with the cheaper F-35 (with reduced capabilities) so that the same basic airframe could be tailored to a specific variant for specific branch requirements, The F-35 was a budget-cutting decision, because it trades off performance as an interceptor or bomber to be a jack of all trades. Killing the F-22 in favor of the more capable F-35 was strategically a boneheaded move, and killing both off is the epitome of stupidity.
Want to balance the budget? It's more simple than the Obama administration (and Congress) are making it: let's stop being the world's policeman, and only get involved if treaties with allies requires us to by law. Reverse the war powers act and enforce the Constitution, giving sole responsibility of the declaration of war (or equivalent) to Congress alone, which is the way it is supposed to be in the first place. Don't cut off investment in defense; cut off wasting money on fighting everyone else's battles. Stop giving hundreds of billions of dollars (which we have to borrow) in foreign aid to other nations. Stop bailing out irresponsible banks, carmakers, "green" power manufacturers, and so on.
Fix welfare; and by "fix" I mean "nuke from orbit" and start over from scratch. Welfare is hopelessly broken, because it is no longer the temporary assistance program it was intended to be but has become a system which ensures people remain a slave to it. I know multiple people who are struggling financially and are receiving assistance, want to get off it but because their industries are dead, or are unable to perform their old jobs, have sought alternate work, but taking a lower-paying job as a temporary stepping stone results in losing all assistance, including food stamps, which leaves them in a worse predicament than they started out in. How would I fix it? I would make it temporary, and I would make it kick in before people lose everything and reach the point where they become entrapped by the system.
Fix illegal invasion of our borders by kicking illegal aliens out, starting with Obama's relatives: Meanwhile, illegal aliens who invade our borders openly flaunt paid-for-by-us housing, tuition, food, clothing, health care, and even cars in some cases, as they work under the table and not pay so much as a dime into the system).
Fix health care: by "fix" I mean nuke RomneyCare (and its demon spawn ObamaCare) from orbit, and focus on the following: regulate the pharmaceutical companies (as in pricing) for any companies which receive any form of subsidy or grant, I would introduce tort reform, and also heavily regulate the insurance companies, to make sure they cover what they say they will cover, provide preventive care instead of engaging in HMO-like "do nothing until it's too late" practices. Tort reform would significantly lower malpractice insurance, and regulating the pharmaceutical companies (and yanking ALL federal and state funding for pharmaceutical companies in violation of regulations AND slapping HEAVY fines upon them) that violate pricing policies. I'm all for charging a profitable fee for drugs, but not when the R&D and even advertising for them is heavily subsidized, and you charge >10x more for the drug domestically than you do overseas.
Taxes: eliminate the tax system as it currently exists; property taxes have pretty much eliminated private ownership of property, sales and excise and inventory taxes place an undue burden on businesses and increase prices for consumers, and death/inheritance taxes are unethical at best because they are taxing money which has already been taxed (which is what excise taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth do as well). I'd implement a flat tax
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
China, OPEC, North Korea, and Russia!
And if we're especially lucky: Canada, Brazil, and India. (I know, fat chance.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
That was what I found curious: Why do we need $500 toilet seats and wrenches? Why do we need to verify that the stapler used to put reports together is safe from an EMP explosion?
That's about 10 copies of the James Webb Telescope assuming absolutely worst case cost estimates. This is about fifteen times the cost that the Terrestrial Planet Finder would have been assuming it had been approved and then run over budget by a lot. It is about four times the cost of ITER, the next generation fusion reactor being built by an international consortium. It is about 1.5 human trips to Mars. It is about four times the maximal cost of the Superconducting Super Collider if it has been approved.Estimating the cost of the International Space Station is tough but this is clearly more than twice that cost. Most of these projects has been on the chopping block at one time. Two of these projects got axed and the Mars one never really got off the ground. This says something about our priorities and it isn't good.
I think the Libyans might have a different perspective. . .
I'd say they do have the money. They're continuing production of the Tu-160, which is easily the best strategic bomber in the world, and if I recall they're ordering several hundred PAK FA as well as modernizing their Flanker fleet to the Su-35 standard, which should make it one of the best 4+-generation fighters out there.
It seems like every day on /. we get one or a couple of articles whose comment threads trend heavily towards NASA-bashing. I'd love for NASA programs to be compared apples-for-apples against DoD programs.
It was just a token gesture. India had just selected the European fighters over the American F-16s and F-18s, and US wanted to break the ice, by offering India their top class (a bit stripped down) fighter, knowing that India would refuse due to costs.
Uh, the US isn't the only democracy that discusses things on the Internet... (Hence the word "opinion" that you might have missed?)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Besides Pakistan had just "purchased" (in quotes, because it was purchased using US grants) F16s and F18s, and India was unhappy with sale and it was a further insult that India had been offered the same fighters (Ever remember people talking about offering weapons to both sides of the war; this was just the case)
The problem with China is that their population, as well as ours in the US, is starting to feel that conflict is inevitable. While it isn't, such things tend to lead to increased tension, and may eventually lead to conflict.
Thus, it is unfair, but wise, to consider China as a potential enemy, and hope they never are.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Basically they wanted this thing to do way to much. The F35 should not have tried to combine absolutely everything that anyone asked for. The VTOL was the worst part, but just being both a bomber and a fighter was a mistake. I am surprised they did not try to add an 'unmanned' mode as well to make it a drone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars The movie is both funny an true, and shows that we do NOT learn from our mistakes.
I believe I am totally confused about this comment string. Mission accomplished?!?
Vertical/Short Take Off & Landing.
From Day 1, the Harrier was limited in the weapons/fuel load it could lift vertically. That is why the R.Navy carriers like Ark Royal had ski jumps. This gave the short take off the extra lift it needed on a short flight deck to carry a full load of fuel and stores. The Plane was also designed to operate from forward airfields in mainland Europe. These would be typically highways. These airfields could be mobile. The Harrier could land vertically, pick up more fuel and weapons and then lify off after using the road as a runway. The vectored thrust would help the plane lift off quickly once it was moving. SHORT Take OFF.
This is from someone who has worked on the Harrier Flight line.
Russia is expected to spend around 500 billion euros in the next ten years to improve their military.
Warfare doesn't work like that. Remember thesis-counterthesis-synthesis from ROTC training? Combined arms? If you have only one way to get the job done, the enemy counters that single strategy before they even declare war, and roll right past your Maginot line. You always, always, need more than one way to reach your objectives, and more than one way to get the job done when you get there.
Good question, though! Not everybody has had military 101.
Actually, Lockheed is under quite a bit of financial pressure these days. And it's a situation that's not going to change anytime soon. Admittedly this is a result of the federal government's financial problems, not their disgraceful performance, but at least it's a start.
It's really pathetic that we are more concerned with playing political games with our allies than fielding the best equipment for our armed forces.
Except that in many cases arming our allies to be able to fight off their immediate threats is much better for us than putting ourselves in a great position to be able to fight in their stead. I mean, which would you rather have: (a) a South Korean air force powerful enough to gain air control against North Korea, or (b) the US Air Force and Navy be forced to scramble a lot of their assets to Japan and fly long-range sorties from there while the North Koreans push the Southern army down to Busan?
Of course, this is not hypothetical; one of the reasons South Korea did so badly against the North in the first few days of the 1950 war was that the North had an air force and the South didn't. If the US Navy hadn't intervened promptly to provide carrier-based air patrol over Korea, the North Koreans would have won quickly.
Are you adequate?
The F35 is overweight, over complex, under powered, and uncompetitive with even the generation of Russian technology (and possibly Chinese).
Its airframe is actually not particularly stealthy, particularly when exposed to the new generation of radars. The AIM-120 is obsolete, and effectively ineffectual against even the last generation of Russian aircraft, which can out-turn, and out-run the obsolete US product. The US aircraft lack the high end IR detection scheme of the Russian planes, and as a result, must light up their radar, in effect no longer being stealth aircraft. The Russian aircraft will no doubt observe EMCOM, and use IRST instead. In effect the US aircraft will either loose its stealth capability and be shot down, or end up in close air combat, high and fast, with a Russian built aircraft, with superior manoeuvrability, and significantly better missile systems.
The F-35 is out manoeuvred, out gunned, and surpassed in every way by even a current model of Sukhoi 27. How will such a product be able to be marketed? Political pressure to buy, one must assume.
In terms of the basic layout, it is in fact based on the Russian Yakovlev Yak-141 program, a privilege for which Lockheed Martin paid the Russian design bureau several hundred million dollars. The basic layout of the VTOL version is almost identical to the Yak-141, and uses the Soviet designed swivelling jet pipe design.
The price of designing an airframe for VTOL capability, even when not actually implemented in a particular derivative, results in a significant increase in RCS, and a significant increase in structural weight. These compromises are evident in all aspects of F35 performance. It shows.
And if we did for some reason go back to air combat, why would we do it with pilots in the planes? Take the need to keep a pilot alive out of the equation and everything gets much cheaper. And we can take the maneuverability close to aerodynamic and mechanical limits rather than the limits of the pilot.
If they cost 1/10th (or 1/1000th) as much and don't have a highly trained (and expensive) pilot in them, how much to we care of they get shot down?
No, were 5 years behind schedule because the governments response to that situation in the past has been "Oh. Well here's some more money. Let see if that helps."
As oppose to here - oh, well too bad... Now we don't get any new fighter jets? (which implies that the current investment is lost).
When contracts like this goes bad, it's loose -- loose situation... I mean what could they have done?
Surely, it's possible that the project have been poorly managed or that major private commercial entities have lied about their cost estimates to get contracts (that's just capitalism, deal with it or revolutionize)...
But the thing is that development of fighter jets is a risky investment, and assuming you want new fighter jets, you have to make such a risky investment.
My country (Denmark) have also invested an awful lot of money (if measured per citizen) in this project. IMO it would have been better if we'd just bought some of the cheap gripen jets that Saab in Sweden is making... Obviously, they're not as cool as the F-35, but for the kind of wars we're participating in (typically UN sanctioned international conflicts where the Americans always does the hard stuff - thank by the way) they're probably fine.
But when our politicians wants to have the newest high tech fighter jets, well, then there's a risk and we've got to accept that.
What else can we do?
Look up the Northrop X-47B. It's a stealth UAV that carries 4500 lbs and takes off from an aircraft carrier. It can do in-flight refueling. We're already there, and in the public domain no less.
Data: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html
Picture: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/lgm_0016.jpg
In principle I agree. The problem is when the contractors KNOW this they can milk the system for more money.
So we need to work with contracts that that bind both parties. Set an upper limit for what the government will pay, a minimum for what the government will receive and logical gates that lock down WHEN each party will walk away.
Even then the system will be gamed, but at least there would be limits.
I'd say they do have the money. They're continuing production of the Tu-160, which is easily the best strategic bomber in the world, and if I recall they're ordering several hundred PAK FA as well as modernizing their Flanker fleet to the Su-35 standard, which should make it one of the best 4+-generation fighters out there.
Regarding the Tu-160, the reason the U.S. has pretty much abandoned that type of aircraft is that it has become largely obsolete. There are better, safer ways of delivering nuclear and non-nuclear munitions to defended targets than sending in a very fast strategic bomber. If you look at U.S. operations over the past decades, they almost always start with sea-and air-launched cruise missile attacks on the air defense network. Once the air defenses are down, B-52s, as old as they are, are able to carry plenty of ordnance wherever you need it. That's the issue - despite the speed, a Tu-160 wouldn't really be much more successful in attacking a well-defended target than a B-52 would; MACH 2.0 vs. 0.7 just doesn't matter that much compared to the capabilities of modern surface to air missiles. Speed and altitude just aren't the defenses they were when the B-70 and B-1A (and Tu-160) were on the drawing board. What you get with the Tu-160 is a hideously expensive to fly strategic bomber with marginally better payload capacity (by weight) than a B-52 or Tu-95. The only reason they are restarting production is that Putin likes the intimidation factor of a supersonic bomber (and the bragging rights of having the biggest and fastest); the reason that there are only 16 of them active compared to ~500 Tu-95 is that they are simply too expensive without really being significantly more capable in real-world scenarios. This is probably the same reason we haven't seen a real replacement for the B-52; while we could build one with a greater payload capacity and be marginally more cost effective/efficient, unless we spend the huge amounts necessary to go stealth and/or high-speed it just isn't going to change the way we can utilize them. We have other weapons for high-risk strikes into well-defended territory; there is no real significant improvement possible for our current use of B-52s, which is to transport large amounts of ordnance from Point A and drop it on Area B.
I'll just leave this here.
Remember the recent Tanker fiasco... Boeing and Airbus fighting over pork with gravy while the KC-135 fleet gets older and older. And the new tanker is still YEARS away.
This was again mostly the fault of the DoD. They ran the worst acquisition program ever. They basically issued requirements which Boeing and Airbus had no trouble meeting. However, they didn't really nail down the desired capacity for the new tanker. Boeing was told (by DoD personnel) that they preferred a smaller tanker; Airbus was told (by different DoD personnel) that they desired a larger tanker. Airbus easily could have offered a smaller tanker to meet the requirements; Boeing easily could have offered a larger. But because the Air Force's requirements were so poorly put together, it wasn't really clear what they wanted. The first round of the selection, which Airbus won, was decided largely because the Airbus solution offered greater fuel capacity. Boeing objected to the selection because Airbus received bonus points in the evaluation for offering more capacity - which Boeing also could have offered had it been clear that the Air Force was going to give bonus points for it.
Not the only issue by far in the tanker competition, but it could have been avoided if the DoD had just spent a little more time figuring out exactly what they wanted before calling for bids. Just as with civilian airliners, I really don't think there is much to choose between a Boeing-based platform and an Airbus-based platform, and a purely cost vs. capability evaluation would probably depend on easily-fudgeable (or difficult to predict, depending on your mood) analyses of lifetime costs; adding in slightly different requirements for each just makes it impossible to have a fair evaluation.
They're not "demilitarized". German army is quite powerful, as is Japanese. You're referring to their politics, which tend to avoid conflicts (Germany) and are pacifist because of constitutional requirements (Japan).
But they both are most certainly equipped to fight a defensive war, or even offensive war if needed. Make no mistake here. They have a lot of military tech and comparatively large military budgets (as compared to rest of the world minus USA).
Republic dear, not democracy. Greek debt shenanigans should show that very clearly even to the most uninformed: "Oh my god, you're going to have a democratic referendum? HOW DARE YOU!".
You forget that while US went in that direction, Europe went in other with eurofighter, which also works.
You can write a thesis on why stealth is better then speed, but the point will stand - both work well.
Back in the 60s Robert McNamara pushed a "joint" fighter common to both Air Force and the Navy. Bean counter at heart, wanted to take advantages of economy of scale, synergy and the other buzzword bingo terms.
The F-111 may have failed but the F-4 Phantom II succeeded. Used by the US Air Force, Navy and Marines as their front line fighter. Entered service in 1960, still in use today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II
Which ones? The ones that got bombed to the ground, or ones currently having fun raping and killing those that got bombed to the ground?
They both have a reason to fear a military attack yet again you know.
They're continuing production of the Tu-160
It's "limited production". This translates to 2 being manufactured in the last 15 years (one in 2000, the other in 2008). Russia has acquired another 8 by sourcing the remaining ones from Ukraine, as a payment for the latter's debt. The last word on the upcoming plans was that 3 more would be built "eventually".
if I recall they're ordering several hundred PAK FA
That would be kinda tricky, given that development is not complete yet - they're expected to have a design-complete working prototype of T-50 in 2013, and put it in service in 2014-15 (keep in mind that, while there are existing "PAK FA" prototypes, they're not final, and some represent alternative design approaches which have since been abandoned). Initially, it is expected that Russian Air Force will order ~60 planes, starting at 2015.
as well as modernizing their Flanker fleet to the Su-35 standard, which should make it one of the best 4+-generation fighters out there.
Yup. The fact that Soviet planes were that good (Su-35 was first flown in 1988) is largely why Russian air force is still a credible threat - most of the development is already done, and there are existing manufacturing lines that can be reused with minimal effort. It will be much harder for Russia to maintain parity as 5th gen becomes more commonplace, however.
It's election time in Russia. If you listen to the official propaganda, it's expected to restore its superpower status by 2020, take over the world by 2050, and achieve superpowers for all its citizens by 2100.
I'm at a loss as to how illegal immigrants manage to avoid paying any property (through their landlord), gas, or sales taxes. It's a shame they work under the table, so we lose out on all the tax money that a legal resident making $10k a year would be paying. How much is that, again?
I think accountability more than anything else is key. If no one loses their job when billions of dollars are wasted, they're just going to keep doing that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Give me a break.
They tried this "one size fits all" approach back in the 60's with the f-4 phantom. Air Force, Marines, Navy all tried the Phantom. It just wasn't "good enough" for each branch. The navy has special needs that the air force & marines don't have, and need a purpose built craft. Does the air force need to replace the f-16? Probably...it first started coming around in the late 70's. Does the navy need to replace the f-18? Probably NOT. Do the marines need to replace the harrier? Yep, old/slow, but the one frame for everyone concept didn't work before. And since the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over expecting a different result, then you have to ask are they nuts?
Wasn't this question answered in some movie about how black ops get funded?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
My feeling now is that any military combat aircraft is obsolete if it carries a human pilot. Whether it is s trike force fighter bomber or a plane designed to attack other fighters or bombers human life support slows down and restricts the ability of the craft. Whether it is excessive fuel or less range caused by human life support systems or simply the ability to take very high G forces in a dog fight humans simply are not needed for combat. And if a plane is shot down we don't have a highly trained pilot lost nor his family to support for the next 80 years. Drones are working out just fine.
Remember that RSA thing, didn't Lockheed get hacked? http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Information+to+Hack+Lockheed+Martin/article21757.htm
they should release the plans to the chinese and buy back the new chinese made planes at quarter the cost. :)
Uhm, who's that now? China is the only serious competitor out there that's in the jet building game nowadays
Obviously, Russia does not build planes.
Russia and EU are in the game as well. Even if they aren't "enemies" by the standard of the earlier poster, they could sell to someone who gets into a conflict with the US. The Russians have already done this.
Others do not "get into conflict with the US". It is US that attacks others.
And of course Russians sell weapons to other countries. US sells weapons to other countries too (and is the largest weapon seller in the world).
I thought Putin was already chosen to be the next president.
If you haven't seen the "Battle of the X-Planes" documentary, you probably should. A lot of detail about the behind the scenes development of the aircraft that were competing head-to-head for the JSF contract.
In the end Boeing's aircraft lost the battle, but it seems that their UAVs will probably win the war. The days of pilots in the cockpit may be much shorter than people previously thought...
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Yes, but it's not quite North Korea yet. They still have to count the votes, and there is only so much fraud that can be done before people start complaining.
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program aimed to replace several aircraft from three major military services with a fifth-generation model capable of short-takeoff and vertical-landing while maintaining the capability of sustained supersonic flight - all while staying affordable"
Doesn't anyone remember the F-111?
You know in the good old days Design to Prototype was about two years (do any search on any of the old good planes of yesteryear I grew-up with, for example the F-104, took ~2 years). This most often included the competition phase. Now, they throw everyone in the pot (the let's make everyone happy approach). And to top all they include FOREIGN companies that may or may not meet US standards of excellence (I am not necessarily referring to Japanese or German companies). Yeah, we definitely have the best Fifth generation fighter out there.....
Nothing to see here -- move along now...
Old is relative with aircraft. There are some DC3's flying down to Antactica this summer that look very similar to the one in the 1951 movie "The Thing from Outer Space". They have new engines, an added mid section and some electronics to separate them from the DC3 of WWII.
Independence Day
We build complex jets which can destroy our opponent, then we send in expensive troops as bait for the remaining opponents, then we send in expensive engineers to rebuild our opponents cities and our own facilities, finally we send in expensive doctors to treat our opponents whom we have hurt. God bless the USA. We have become a country of backwards idiots.
A very good reason to drop the program is that it was hacked.
There are a very large number of differences between the two situations. You can't hide behind a tree or behind rocks on a mountain if you don't have either, and as pointed out above the occupiers outnumbered the locals which makes things very tricky when there are only a limited number of habitable shelters on the islands and it's certain death outside of them.
In the case of Greece, it's more like "Oh my god, we've been discussing a solution for our problems for months, and now it turns out you can't really speak for your people because you have zero support from them?"
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Whatever. Point is, the US gets into scraps and if the US spends its time building pork programs instead of cost-effective, working weapons, it's going to start losing badly once all those other producers pass them by. Obviously, you wouldn't think that's a bad thing.
*sigh*
Yes, republic... Seriously though, who did I confuse?
Democracy has entered the vernacular as meaning elected representation. It's not technically correct, but it's also not going away.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
It wasn't a $500 toilet seat, it was a custom crafted fixture to enclose a new tank that a toilet seat attached to and the reason it was so expensive is that a new mold had to be built and they were only producing a run of a few hundred units. Likewise the $500 toolbox was a soundproofed unit designed for working outside the acoustically shielded portion of a line of billion dollar nuclear submarines with a handful of units produced.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I think the idea good sir is that if you do the diplomacy right, you don't NEED the armed forces. =)
Thank you. That was driving me nuts.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.